I'd say those texts off the deflator & other guys phones are pretty clear what took place. I like Brady but the guy was clearly lying before the SB on his knowledge.
All those coincidences & he had nothing to do with it? Come on
You see this is where things get fuzzy and aren't easy. It's easy to just want to take the easy way out, but the easy way doesn't mean the correct path is followed.
You're right on face value, if no one knows anything about anything else, it looks pretty guilty.
But it is hardly damning evidence. If this is the most concrete thing the NFL has, and it seems it is their strongest evidence, I think they should just let it go if they can't find something else.
They are trying to make us believe because the balls were underinflated (which was proved to not necessarily be true especially when compared to Indy's footballs), and the term that arose AFTER the fact was 'deflategate', that somehow because someone used the word deflator in a text, this implies guilt.
Deflator ----- Deflategate
Now the NFL can try to find out more, but it seems like they've hit a dead end, and just want to roll with this, and that he 'destroyed' his phone by upgrading it on schedule somehow confirms this.
It's a pretty shaky rationale to begin with, and the confirmation is equally shaky.
Now, maybe the Patriots are full of it, they definitely have reason to be full of it, but there are times in life where things without proper context can completely be opposite of reality. There are times in life, though rare, that situations can paint someone in a bad light and are simply circumstantial.
"Mr. Jastremski would sometimes work out and bulk up -- he is a slender guy and his goal was to get to 200 pounds. Mr. McNally is a big fellow and had the opposite goal: to lose weight. 'Deflate' was a term they used to refer to losing weight. One can specifically see this use of the term in a Nov. 30, 2014 text from Mr. McNally to Mr. Jastremski: 'deflate and give somebody that jacket.' ... This banter, and Mr. McNally's goal of losing weight, meant Mr. McNally was the 'deflator.' There was nothing complicated or sinister about it."
Now this quote, and the reference to the Nov 30th text message, clearly shows a potential for something to seem criminal, but not be. Clearly the term deflator was used months prior to actual accusation of a crime.
In fact, because he handled the equipment, including the balls, that would in fact provide a rationale for a moniker to be given to such a person. Because often times, people get monikers that are related to something about them... their appearance, their ability/or lack of it on something, their job...
What if Tom Brady was completely innocent, but because of this banter, he felt he looked guilty. Would destruction of his phone prove his guilt then? So it's even possible that Brady DID get rid of his phone, because innocent banter looked like evidence against him. That is definitely possible.
In absence of actual proof, even without this text message to provide context, I would be against levying penalties against Brady, because they really don't have anything concrete. But with this, you are basically in a tit-for-tat situation. Cheater or not, I don't see sufficient reason to punish him.
Besides, even if they proved the guy DID deflate it knowingly, they haven't provided any proof that Brady directed it. Hell it's possible that in practice maybe Brady likes a deflated ball, and perhaps he does it. There could be text messages even regarding that... but that wouldn't mean he directed him to do it during a game.
Even beyond that there's a chance that perhaps the guy went rogue, and knowing the importance of the games, did it without him knowing. Yes, this can indeed happen. It gets shrugged off as impossible, but it is indeed possible.
Why should Brady get disciplined if he didn't know about it?
So overall we get back down to everything, what have they proved? The answer is, nothing really. They perhaps have some text messages, not from Brady, and nothing in them showcases Brady knew or directed them to do anything.
Again maybe he's guilty, but the NFL hasn't proved anything, and is just grasping at straws. Perhaps those straws do have some validity if we were god and knew everything, but we don't, and I don't like the NFL pretending they know for a fact, when they don't, and levying so called justice.
It's not about what we believe might happen based on tea leaves, it's about actual facts, and we really don't have enough to support one way or another. There is a lot of conflicting information, and overall the NFL and Goodell have botched this investigation good.
Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather let 100 guilty men go unpunished then let one man get wrongly punished. After all, if he was guilty we should look down on him for it, but overall this is a very trivial thing. This isn't bountygate where people were out for heads. So the desire of the NFL to push this to the extreme seems a bit baffling. Especially when I don't see any investigation or hint of even trying to fact finding on Rodgers or anyone else.
Even the rationale behind all this is the fact that this was an offense whose penalty is a fine. While true the 'Nixon' standard gets trotted out, that the coverup was what got him... that was because he was covering up during a true legal process. The NFL's is not. So the whole coverup thing shouldn't be applicable to a non-legal basis, as they haven't bypassed any true legal process, and no they haven't proved he covered anything up either.
It's like we're/media/NFL are taking shortcuts on everything and just trying to railroad Brady. I don't like that.
